Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal and others, Appellants
Versus
Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy, Respondent
Civil Appeals Nos. 1061 and 1627-1629 of 1966, D/- 26-2-1970. 2356
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Chagla, Sr. Advocate (M/s. J. L. Hathi, K. L. Hathi, and K. N. Bhat, Advocates, with him), for Appellants (In all Appeals); M/s. R. P. Bhat and Janendra Lal, Advocates and M/s. R. A. Gagrat and B. R. Agarwala, Advocates of M/s. Gagrat and Co., for Respondent (In all Appeals).
-the doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure - Mathura Prasad v. Dossibhai, AIR 1971 SC 2355, and is dictated by a wisdom which is for all time – Burn & Co. v. Their Employee, AIR. 1957 SC 38, and is founded on equity, justice and good conscience which required that a party which has once succeeded on an issue should not be permitted to be harassed by a multiplicity of proceedings involving determination of the same issue - Cal Chand v. Radha Kishan, AIR. 1977 SC 789, the rule of res judicata is to confer finality on decisions arrived at by competent Courts between interested parties after genuine contest - Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali, AIR 1974 SC 749.
-however erroneous it may be, constitutes res judicata between the parties to the suit
-operates as res judicata
-there are authorities to show that a decision on an issue of law will operate as res judicata in the subsequent proceeding between the same parties if the cause of action of the subsequent proceeding be the same as in the previous proceeding. The decision, however, will not operate as res judicata (1) when the cause of action is different, (2) when the law has since the earlier decision been altered by a competent authority, (3) when the decision relates to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the earlier proceeding, and (4) when the earlier decision declares valid a transaction prohibited by law – Mathura Prasad v. Dossabhai, AIR 1971 SC 2355; Jai Singh Jai Ram Tyagi v. Maman Chand, AIR 1980 SC 1201; Amritsar Municipality v. State of Punjab, AIR 1969 SC 1100; Mata Din v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953 = (1970) 2 SCJ 137 = (1970) 2 SCR 90.
-as held in decision will not operate as res judicata when the law has since the earlier decision been altered by a competent authority
The case revolves around the applicability of res judicata (under Section 11, CPC) to a prior court's erroneous decision on its jurisdiction to determine standard rent for open land leased for building construction under the Bombay Rents Act. The tenant's initial application was rejected by the Civil Judge, Borivli (confirmed by Bombay High Court), holding the Act's Section 6(1) inapplicable to such land. Later, relying on a conflicting High Court ruling, the tenant refiled in Small Causes Court, Bombay (after area inclusion in Greater Bombay), but courts below applied res judicata, barring relitigation. (!) (!) [1000147350002]
Core Ruling on Res Judicata: - Res judicata applies to issues of fact, mixed law/fact, or pure law only if they form the "matter directly and substantially in issue" (i.e., rights founded on specific facts + applicable law) and were finally decided by a competent court between the same parties. [1000147350003][1000147350004][1000147350012] - A pure question of law (unrelated to foundational facts/rights) does not operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings if: 1. Cause of action differs. 2. Law has been altered since the prior decision. 3. Decision concerns the court's jurisdiction (erroneous assumption or denial of jurisdiction does not bind parties; procedure cannot override substantive law). [1000147350004] (!) (!) (!) [1000147350009] 4. Prior decision validates a prohibited transaction. [1000147350004] - Doctrine is procedural, aimed at finality on rights (not abstract law interpretation), equity, and preventing multiplicity; it does not "fasten special principles of law" inter partes or supersede statutory jurisdiction. [1000147350004] (!) [1000147350008][1000147350009]
Outcome: Prior jurisdictional ruling was erroneous (as later clarified) and did not bar the fresh application. Appeals allowed; matter remanded for trial on merits. No costs. [1000147350010][1000147350011] (!) (!)
Judgment
SHAH, J.:- Under an indenture dated August 2, 1950, Dossibai - respondent in this appeal -granted a lease of- 555 sq. yards in village Pahadi, Taluka Borivli to Mathura Prasad - appellant herein - for constructing buildings for residential or business purposes. The appellant constructed buildings on the land. He then submitted an application in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Borivli, District Thana, that the standard rent of the land be determined under Sec. 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The Civil Judge rejected the application holding that the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, did not apply to open land let for constructing buildings for residence, education, business trade or storage. This order was confirmed on September 28, 1955, by a single Judge of the Bombay High Court in a group of revision applications: Mrs. Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy v. Hingoo Manohar Missar Nos. 233 to 242 of 1955 (Bom). But in Vinayak Gopal Limaye v. Laxman Kashinath Athavale, ILR (1956) Bom 827 the High Court of Bombay held that the question whether S. 6 (1) of the Act applies to any particular lease must be determined on its terms and a building lease in respect of an open plot is not excluded from S. 6 (1) of the Act solely because open land may be used for residence or educational purposes only after a structure is built thereon. Relying upon this judgment, the appellant filed a fresh petition in the Court of the Small Causes, Bombay, for an order determining the standard rent of the permises. The application was filed in the Court of Small Causes because the area in which the land was situated had since been included within the limits of the Greater Bombay area. The Trial Judge rejected the application holding that the question whether to an open piece of land let for the purpose of constructing builings for residence, education, business or trade Section 6 (1) of the Act applied was res judicata since it had been finally decided by the High Court between the same parties in respect of the same land in the earlier proceeding for fixation of, standard rent. The order was confirmed by a Bench of the Court of Small Causes and by the High Court of Bombay. With special leave, the appellant has appealed to this Court.
2. The view expressed by the High Court of Bombay in Civil revision Application No. 233 of 1955 D/-28-9-1955 (Bom) was overruled by this Court in Mrs. Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy v. Khemchand Gorumal, (1962) 3 SCR 928. In the latter case the Court affirmed the view expressed by the Bombay High Court in Vinayak Gopal Limaye s case, ILR (1956) Bom 827.
3. But all the Courts have held that the earlier decision of the High Court of Bombay between the same parties and relating to the same land is res judicata. Sec. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure which enacts the general rule of res judicata, insofar as it is relevant, provides:
"No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court."
The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Borivli, was competent to try the application for determination of standard rent, and he held that Section 6 (1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Home Rates Control Act, 1947, did not apply to open land let for construction of residential and business premises.
4. The rule of res Judicata applies if "the matter directly and substantially in issue" in a suit or proceeding was directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit between the same parties and had been heard and finally decided by a competent Court. The Civil Judge, Junior Di
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
